South Essex news

Five bailed following arrests in Lee Balkwell death probe

FIVE people arrested in connection with the death of Lee Balkwell ten years ago on Wednesday have been released on police bail.

Mr Balkwell, 33, was found dead trapped between the drum and chassis of a cement mixer at Baldwin’s Farm, South Ockendon, at 1am on July 18 2002.

An inquest in 2008 concluded he died as a result of gross negligence manslaughter.

Lee’s former employer Simon Bromley, 43, from Baldwin’s Farm, was arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter this, perverting the course of justice and perjury.

His dad David Bromley, 66, mum Linda Bromley, 66, from Baldwin’s Farm, plus a 49-year-old woman from South Ockendon and a 38-year-old Southend man were also arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and perjury.

They were the first arrests ever in connection with the death said to have happened while Mr Balkwell and Mr Bromley were cleaning cement from the drum.

Comments (11)

I hope this will give the dad peace of mind, although I fear nothing will until he gets the verdict that he believes is the right verdict.

Unfortunatly unless there is evidence nothing can or will change.

I feel for the Dad.

I hope this will give the dad peace of mind, although I fear nothing will until he gets the verdict that he believes is the right verdict.
Unfortunatly unless there is evidence nothing can or will change.
I feel for the Dad.Brunning999

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
There are bundles of evidence, and in my opinion....it points to *more than* gross negligence manslaughter!

You know that do you?

Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.

Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.

Perhaps a private prosecution might be more conclusive it is just beyond doubt.

[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
There are bundles of evidence, and in my opinion....it points to *more than* gross negligence manslaughter![/p][/quote]You know that do you?
Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.
Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.
Perhaps a private prosecution might be more conclusive it is just beyond doubt.Brunning999

All the evidence in this case is there if you care to take your blinkers off and look.

Unlike you....I have!

[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
There are bundles of evidence, and in my opinion....it points to *more than* gross negligence manslaughter![/p][/quote]You know that do you?
Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.
Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.
Perhaps a private prosecution might be more conclusive it is just beyond doubt.[/p][/quote]What part of 'my opinion' didn't you understand?
'Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.'
No. I base 'my opinion' on *all* the material (regarding the case) I've seen, read and heard.
'Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.'
Try telling that to: The Birmingham Six, Derek Bentley, Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans, The Birmingham Six, Stephen Downing, and many more....
All the evidence in this case is there if you care to take your blinkers off and look.
Unlike you....I have!Soouthchurch59

All the evidence in this case is there if you care to take your blinkers off and look.

Unlike you....I have!

[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
There are bundles of evidence, and in my opinion....it points to *more than* gross negligence manslaughter![/p][/quote]You know that do you?
Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.
Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.
Perhaps a private prosecution might be more conclusive it is just beyond doubt.[/p][/quote]'You know that do you?'
What part of 'my opinion' didn't you understand?
'Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.'
No. I base 'my opinion' on *all* the material (regarding the case) I've seen, read and heard.
'Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.'
Try telling that to: The Birmingham Six, Derek Bentley, Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans, The Birmingham Six, Stephen Downing, and many more....
All the evidence in this case is there if you care to take your blinkers off and look.
Unlike you....I have!Soouthchurch59

All the evidence in this case is there if you care to take your blinkers off and look.

Unlike you....I have!

Exactly my point which you do not seem to grasp or do you want another group of people imprisoned without real, proper and sufficient evidence.

Are you saying that it is okay to convict and imprison people without sufficient evidence?

I do not understand your logic do you?

[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
There are bundles of evidence, and in my opinion....it points to *more than* gross negligence manslaughter![/p][/quote]You know that do you?
Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.
Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.
Perhaps a private prosecution might be more conclusive it is just beyond doubt.[/p][/quote]'You know that do you?'
What part of 'my opinion' didn't you understand?
'Sorry you are going down the lord McAlpine route of guilty by press reports.'
No. I base 'my opinion' on *all* the material (regarding the case) I've seen, read and heard.
'Try to remember in all criminal cases we go on Proven beyond 'ALL' reasonable doubt something Mr Balkwell is struggling to accept.'
Try telling that to: The Birmingham Six, Derek Bentley, Stefan Kiszko, Timothy Evans, The Birmingham Six, Stephen Downing, and many more....
All the evidence in this case is there if you care to take your blinkers off and look.
Unlike you....I have![/p][/quote]Exactly my point which you do not seem to grasp or do you want another group of people imprisoned without real, proper and sufficient evidence.
Are you saying that it is okay to convict and imprison people without sufficient evidence?
I do not understand your logic do you?Brunning999

The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.

The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.Soouthchurch59

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.

Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.

You also do not seem to understand the point I have made that nothing is proven until there is a conviction, there will not be a conviction until there is a court case and finally there will not be a court case until there is sufficient evidence.

Until all these facts are proven and established you might be well advised to keep a grip on your allegations and slanders.

You are not helping Mr Balkwell he understands the need for a secure convictions otherwise any case will be thrown out of court OR as you seem to be unable to accept someone convicted who is not guilty is as you point out truly awful.

Lets see what happens and I repeat without evidence nothing CAN happen, and that is not a defence of anyone just a defence of our process of Law.

[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.[/p][/quote]Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.
You also do not seem to understand the point I have made that nothing is proven until there is a conviction, there will not be a conviction until there is a court case and finally there will not be a court case until there is sufficient evidence.
Until all these facts are proven and established you might be well advised to keep a grip on your allegations and slanders.
You are not helping Mr Balkwell he understands the need for a secure convictions otherwise any case will be thrown out of court OR as you seem to be unable to accept someone convicted who is not guilty is as you point out truly awful.
Lets see what happens and I repeat without evidence nothing CAN happen, and that is not a defence of anyone just a defence of our process of Law.Brunning999

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.

Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.

You also do not seem to understand the point I have made that nothing is proven until there is a conviction, there will not be a conviction until there is a court case and finally there will not be a court case until there is sufficient evidence.

Until all these facts are proven and established you might be well advised to keep a grip on your allegations and slanders.

You are not helping Mr Balkwell he understands the need for a secure convictions otherwise any case will be thrown out of court OR as you seem to be unable to accept someone convicted who is not guilty is as you point out truly awful.

Lets see what happens and I repeat without evidence nothing CAN happen, and that is not a defence of anyone just a defence of our process of Law.

'Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.'

Ha! I wont be holding my breath. Have you *actually* read anything *other* than the ECHO reports on this case?

The IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said:

"We have found that Mr Balkwell's belief that the original investigation into Lee Balkwell's death was inadequate was well founded. In our view it was seriously flawed. From the outset it was mired in assumption that what had happened to Lee Balkwell was a tragic industrial accident. Officers failed to secure potential evidence, failed to interview potential witnesses and failed to treat the death with an open mind."

The whole case stinks - but at least/last is starting to move.

[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.[/p][/quote]Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.
You also do not seem to understand the point I have made that nothing is proven until there is a conviction, there will not be a conviction until there is a court case and finally there will not be a court case until there is sufficient evidence.
Until all these facts are proven and established you might be well advised to keep a grip on your allegations and slanders.
You are not helping Mr Balkwell he understands the need for a secure convictions otherwise any case will be thrown out of court OR as you seem to be unable to accept someone convicted who is not guilty is as you point out truly awful.
Lets see what happens and I repeat without evidence nothing CAN happen, and that is not a defence of anyone just a defence of our process of Law.[/p][/quote]'Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.'
Ha! I wont be holding my breath. Have you *actually* read anything *other* than the ECHO reports on this case?
The IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said:
"We have found that Mr Balkwell's belief that the original investigation into Lee Balkwell's death was inadequate was well founded. In our view it was seriously flawed. From the outset it was mired in assumption that what had happened to Lee Balkwell was a tragic industrial accident. Officers failed to secure potential evidence, failed to interview potential witnesses and failed to treat the death with an open mind."
The whole case stinks - but at least/last is starting to move.Soouthchurch59

Soouthchurch59 wrote:
The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.

Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.

You also do not seem to understand the point I have made that nothing is proven until there is a conviction, there will not be a conviction until there is a court case and finally there will not be a court case until there is sufficient evidence.

Until all these facts are proven and established you might be well advised to keep a grip on your allegations and slanders.

You are not helping Mr Balkwell he understands the need for a secure convictions otherwise any case will be thrown out of court OR as you seem to be unable to accept someone convicted who is not guilty is as you point out truly awful.

Lets see what happens and I repeat without evidence nothing CAN happen, and that is not a defence of anyone just a defence of our process of Law.

'Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.'

Ha! I wont be holding my breath. Have you *actually* read anything *other* than the ECHO reports on this case?

The IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said:

&quot;We have found that Mr Balkwell's belief that the original investigation into Lee Balkwell's death was inadequate was well founded. In our view it was seriously flawed. From the outset it was mired in assumption that what had happened to Lee Balkwell was a tragic industrial accident. Officers failed to secure potential evidence, failed to interview potential witnesses and failed to treat the death with an open mind."

The whole case stinks - but at least/last is starting to move.

It is irrelevant who says what where and when in some enquiry or inquisition at the end of the day the straight facts are not what actually happened but what can be proven beyond ALL reasonable doubt what happened.

I cannot understand your argument, because you appear to say that dodgy evidence should be found in this case but that is not the case in The Guildford Four, the Birmingham 6 and the Mcquire case.

If you cannot prove anything nothing will happen.

[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Brunning999[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Soouthchurch59[/bold] wrote:
The investigation has been flawed/badly managed from the off! You forget (or simply don't know) the facts of this case float on an under-story of drugs and police corruption.....Time will tell.[/p][/quote]Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.
You also do not seem to understand the point I have made that nothing is proven until there is a conviction, there will not be a conviction until there is a court case and finally there will not be a court case until there is sufficient evidence.
Until all these facts are proven and established you might be well advised to keep a grip on your allegations and slanders.
You are not helping Mr Balkwell he understands the need for a secure convictions otherwise any case will be thrown out of court OR as you seem to be unable to accept someone convicted who is not guilty is as you point out truly awful.
Lets see what happens and I repeat without evidence nothing CAN happen, and that is not a defence of anyone just a defence of our process of Law.[/p][/quote]'Hopefully Police will read this and Essex Police federation will follow up on you use of the term Police corruption because that has not been proven in a court.'
Ha! I wont be holding my breath. Have you *actually* read anything *other* than the ECHO reports on this case?
The IPCC commissioner Rachel Cerfontyne said:
"We have found that Mr Balkwell's belief that the original investigation into Lee Balkwell's death was inadequate was well founded. In our view it was seriously flawed. From the outset it was mired in assumption that what had happened to Lee Balkwell was a tragic industrial accident. Officers failed to secure potential evidence, failed to interview potential witnesses and failed to treat the death with an open mind."
The whole case stinks - but at least/last is starting to move.[/p][/quote]It is irrelevant who says what where and when in some enquiry or inquisition at the end of the day the straight facts are not what actually happened but what can be proven beyond ALL reasonable doubt what happened.
I cannot understand your argument, because you appear to say that dodgy evidence should be found in this case but that is not the case in The Guildford Four, the Birmingham 6 and the Mcquire case.
If you cannot prove anything nothing will happen.Brunning999